Muda69

So how do you effectively prevent the "white men" from having the majority of political power in the United States? Is there objective, verifiable proof that non-"white men" having the majority of political power will be an improvement?

The Right Call on Iran, But It Shouldn’t Be Trump’s Call: https://www.cato.org/blog/right-call-iran-it-shouldnt-be-trumps-call Agreed. In situations like this the decision to even fire a single missile needs to be removed from the office of the POTUS. The legacy of the Cold War, where the belief that the POTUS needed the quick and unitary power to respond to a nuclear strike by the USSR could somewhat be justified, is still with us today.

Some People Are Buying Their Way Into Top Public Schools. That's Not How School Choice Should Work: https://reason.com/2019/06/21/some-people-are-buying-their-way-into-top-public-schools-thats-not-how-school-choice-should-work/

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/06/19/coleman_hughes_the_moment_you_give_someone_reparations_youve_made_them_into_a_victim.html But we are a society the seems to increasingly define itself by our victimhood, and what government can do, no what it has to do, to right that wrong, even if it is a "microaggression". So what Jim Crow laws are still actively in place in the United States of America? Here in Indiana?

What does this mean gonzo? That there needs to be a U.S. Constitutional amendment which limits the number of "white men" that can hold elected office in Congress?

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/education/2019/06/21/archdiocese-indianapolis-brebeuf-jesuit-catholic-what-it-means/1522790001/ One wonders how this will affect future enrollment at the preparatory school? Current support from parents, students, and alumni appears to be steadfast.

If you are a member of the Caucasian race you were implicit in the evil of slavery, the plight of the American indian, placing Japanese Americans into camps during WW2, etc. , and have to pay. Reparations for blacks, American indians, Japanese, Chinese, etc. all we will be paid via increases in the federal income tax for "whites only". Seems to be simplest and most direct method, does it not?

https://reason.com/2019/06/18/gorsuch-joins-ginsburg-in-decrying-a-colossal-exception-to-the-ban-on-double-jeopardy/ This "proof of a different element" is just jargon designed to give the federal government more power to prosecute Americans. It is anathema to the Double Jeopardy clause of the U.S. Constitution. 99.9% of all offenses should be tried by the states, and the states only.

Activists Want a Problematic Mural of George Washington Destroyed. It Will Cost a High School $600,000.: https://reason.com/2019/06/20/george-washington-mural-san-francisco-racist/

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/06/oberlin-college-descent-into-disgrace/ Agreed. Mr. Will is spot on with his commentary. The current Oberlin College is now a disgrace to its storied liberal past.

Britain keeps knocking them out of the park, this time with an assault on free speech: https://reason.com/2019/06/19/the-u-k-has-banned-harmful-gender-stereotypes-in-advertisements/ The ban was implemented following an ASA review which concluded that stereotypical depictions pave the way for "real-world psychological, physical, economic, social and political harm for individuals and groups." Specifically, it mentions that the media portrayals may influence which toys children play with, "which can have long-term impacts." In adults, a stereotypically feminine rendering of women's roles can decrease their "motives and ambition, attitudes to involvement in politics, performance on maths tests and preferences for leadership roles." Certain scenarios are exempt from the new law. An ad may depict "a woman doing the shopping" or "a man doing DIY," so long as it is not presented in a light deemed insulting by the ASA. It also permits gender stereotypes when the ad explicitly challenges them. Gender stereotypes "constrict people's choices," says the ASA review. Yet the ban itself does precisely that, as it limits companies from advertising their products as they see fit and shields consumers from ideas associated with wrongthink.

But won't the Trump administration, or I should say the American taxpayers, effectively bail them out with free money, much like the never ending Farm Bill has done for decades?

Yes, I do criticize it. That doesn't necessarily mean I want to underpinnings of it (aka the U.S. Constitution) to change.

So you don't believe manufacturers whose products are affected by Mr. Trump's tariffs should be allowed to raise prices on those products? Mr. Trump caused this problem, not the steel companies.

Sorry that you don't see the difference between supporting the U.S. Constitution and being critical of the U.S federal government. That body violates that storied document, the foundation for our country, on almost a daily basis.

As U.S. Steel Slows Production, It's Time To Stop Pretending Tariffs Work: https://reason.com/2019/06/19/as-u-s-steel-slows-production-its-time-to-stop-pretending-tariffs-work/

Where I have stated that I dislike the U.S. Constitution, gonzo?

Witness says ARM coerced workers to abuse calves, prosecutor says: https://www.jconline.com/story/news/2019/06/18/fair-oaks-farms-abuse-witness-says-arm-coerced-workers-abuse-calves-prosecutor-says/1494860001/ You kind of knew this development was coming.

"Restorative Justice" What a joke. And this American doesn't "owe" other American citizens anything. And the only real obligation I have is to keep my nose out of another American's affairs unless specifically asked to by that other American.

You missed the phrase "the America you want to live in, Dante." You have made it clear you dislike our current federal governmental system and want it to change radically.

https://mises.org/wire/why-are-progressives-so-bad-governing Any competent (or even incompetent, for that matter) economist can tell us how such a scenario plays out in the long run, and the economic chaos that was the former Soviet Union stands as Exhibit A, while the New York of the 1970s and the 1980s is Exhibit B. Yes, even in the face of hardcore evidence against his position, de Blasio stands firm. In fact, an entire new wave of politicians in this country calling themselves “progressives” are trying to fashion a “new” economy, one based upon a “Green New Deal,” and other massive interventions into private economic activity. That the experience of socialism never matches its utopian rhetoric seems not to have changed a mind among this new generation of progressives. ... Progressive Failures Multiply This year’s herd of nominees for the Democrats’ candidate for president are following in de Blasio’s footsteps in calling for a future of progressive governance. Like de Blasio (whom City Journal has nicknamed “Mayor de Bolshevik”), they call for highly-symbolic measures that by themselves will not make their alleged intended targets — poor and middle-class Americans — better off. However, while their legislative initiatives, such as raising taxes to confiscatory levels, establishing socialized medicine, sinking vast sums of money into questionable public works ventures like the ill-fated “Bullet Train” in California. ... Progressive Government in California If there is an Exhibit A of the combination of progressive and incompetent government, it is California, which outdoes even the progressive New York when it comes to outright fiscal folly. Steven Greenhut of R Street Corporation and a former editorial writer for the Orange County Register has been covering California politics for many years and never is surprised at the latest outrage from the nation’s most progressive state. Not only does California give us the ill-fated “Bullet Train,” but it also has become the national “leader” in homelessness, out-of-control housing prices, and regular natural disasters such as the huge wildfires that burned throughout the state in 2018 causing much death and destruction. And, unlike their predecessors — political liberals who at least championed freedom of the press and due process of law — progressives have no problem using police state tactics to muzzle journalists and suppress free speech. ... Unfortunately, progressives have a different worldview. They claim that they can rejuvenate an economy by imposing confiscatory tax rates, regulating business decisions, and create a “fair and just world” by putting into law the latest pronouncements from the Sexual Revolution and enforcing those laws with an iron fist. That these things, as Rothbard puts it, violate human nature, then progressives must change human nature, and by force, if necessary. This is the kind of “progressivism” that leads to totalitarianism, the kind of totalitarianism that wracked China during its Cultural Revolution. While I doubt that progressives will be able to create a Cult of Bill de Blasio as was the case with Mao and China, nonetheless they can make it difficult for people of opposing beliefs to find work in certain fields, like medicine. ... Progressivism is not a blueprint for governing. It is a blueprint for disaster. We have seen the wreckage in many places, but there is one thing progressives apparently need not fear: paying a political price for their misdeeds. As long as these electoral and governance patterns exist, progressives will expand their power bases — and continue to govern badly. Yep, New York and California are prime examples of where progressivism leads.

https://reason.com/2019/06/19/the-case-for-capitalism/#comments Agreed.

Apparently, Bernie Sanders Doesn't Know the Difference Between Revenue and Profit: https://reason.com/2019/06/18/apparently-bernie-sanders-doesnt-know-the-difference-between-revenue-and-profit/ 6,750 people are talking about this In the tweet, Sanders confuses "revenue" with "profit." This is not an insignificant mistake, but it's one that is common in reporting about large American corporations. All too often, reporters talk about how much money a company takes in without offering any analysis of that company's expenses. Amazon, for example, despite massive revenues has only recently begun making an actual profit. In the Time storythat Sanders links to, writer Alana Semuels similarly fails to differentiate between revenue and profit when covering the efforts to organize. It's true that the game industry did bring in $42 billion in revenue last year from customers in the United States (and nearly $140 billion worldwide). But revenue is the money a company brings in before deducting its expenses, like, for example, workers' wages. . It's only after such workers are paid (and other expenses are deducted) that we can talk about profit. Sanders, of course, has a long history of failing to grasp the basics of market economics. He frequently sees marketplace choices as a threat, even as they open avenues and opportunities for our poorest citizens or provide all of us with ever improving mass entertainment.

Apparently, Bernie Sanders Doesn't Know the Difference Between Revenue and Profit: https://reason.com/2019/06/18/apparently-bernie-sanders-doesnt-know-the-difference-between-revenue-and-profit/ 6,750 people are talking about this In the tweet, Sanders confuses "revenue" with "profit." This is not an insignificant mistake, but it's one that is common in reporting about large American corporations. All too often, reporters talk about how much money a company takes in without offering any analysis of that company's expenses. Amazon, for example, despite massive revenues has only recently begun making an actual profit. In the Time storythat Sanders links to, writer Alana Semuels similarly fails to differentiate between revenue and profit when covering the efforts to organize. It's true that the game industry did bring in $42 billion in revenue last year from customers in the United States (and nearly $140 billion worldwide). But revenue is the money a company brings in before deducting its expenses, like, for example, workers' wages. . It's only after such workers are paid (and other expenses are deducted) that we can talk about profit. Sanders, of course, has a long history of failing to grasp the basics of market economics. He frequently sees marketplace choices as a threat, even as they open avenues and opportunities for our poorest citizens or provide all of us with ever improving mass entertainment.